This is my final post for this blog. I am now blogging exclusively for NewsReal.
Hope you check it out – NewsRealBlog.com
Monday night’s episode of The Daily Show raised an important issue, as only Jon Stewart could – replaying moments from the ridiculous media frenzies surrounding high-profile trials in this country, as a prelude to the upcoming trial in New York City of the 9/11 terrorists.
Click image to view video
When the 9/11 trial does begin, no one will be laughing. We are already seeing a profuse amount of punditry on the television screen, radio waves Internet and print news, sending an ominous signal of the media barrage to come. The trial itself will be a drawn-out, exhausting process for the nation. But it’s the impending, non-stop, circus-like media coverage that will undoubtedly be the test of the endurance of the American spirit. If past examples show us anything, it’s that the media will forever believe more is better in their rabid pursuit of ratings and readers.
CNN recently aired a segment on the upsurge of so-called militias across the United States, focusing specifically on the Southeast Michigan Volunteer Militia, as they “practice target acquisition” with high-powered semi-automatic rifles, run drills and practice first aid.
This Michigan militia is one of hundreds of such groups across the country, and that number is growing. Some of the groups are unquestionably extremist, racist groups that promote hate and other radical ideologies that keep them out of mainstream America, fermenting on the edge of a more tolerant society. Despite common perceptions of militias in our country, an even larger number of these militias are made up seemingly ordinary Americans.
The SWVM posts a rather innocuous “mission statement” in the form of a plain-language disclaimer on its website:
“The SMVM is devoted to individual rights and the ideals that lie at the foundation of our society. We have no affiliation with, nor do we promote or encourage, any subversive or quasi-subversive entities or acts against the United States of America or against the American People, inside or outside of U.S. borders. Any and all instruction and training conducted by The SMVM is done in accordance with Federal, State and Local Laws and regulations. The SMVM does not and will not train any foreign or domestic entity(ies) that could pose a threat to — or has denounced — the United States of America.”
The United States employed militias in the war for independence from Great Britain, then again in the Civil War. The fundamental ideologies and sentiments of militias such as the SMVM are not so different from those of militiamen who fought to free a nation from the tyranny of a distant empire, then to free an entire race in America from the tyranny of another. Little else remains the same.
Right to Bear Arms vs. Right to Form a “Well-Regulated” Militia
In November 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft issued a letter to all federal prosecutors stating the Justice Department’s new official position that the Second Amendment protected the individual ownership of firearms. His decision was based largely on judicial precedent. So, for the sake of this discussion, we will consider settled the question of the individual’s right to bear arms.
The question of citizen-run militias, however, requires a look not only at the words of the Second Amendment, but also a close examination of the world in which they now function, as opposed the world in which militias found their root in American society.
A report from Rutgers University Law School (Defending Themselves: The Original Understanding of the Right to Bear Arms) states:
“The right to bear arms was not exercised solely by the state or by individuals, but rather by citizens to ensure public safety. Indeed, the individual right to bear arms was essential if men were to perform their duty of militia service.”
Indeed, in the era our Constitution was drafted, and for almost a century after, militias were essential in the defense of our nation. The United States did not, at that time, have a significant standing army or a national law enforcement body. Nor did communities have regular police forces.
Today, the United States has a strong military force, federal law enforcement agencies, and a robust judicial system. States have the National Guard and other state law enforcement agencies. Localities have police forces.
Militias are not held to any system of laws that determine their jurisdiction or modus operandi. They are not, in the modern sense of the word, regulated – certainly not the “well-regulated” militias of which the Second Amendment speaks.
So the remaining questions are –
- “Do militias still serve a necessary role in America?”
- “If militias do still serve a legitimate role in America, should we take a literla approach to the verbiage of the Second Amendment and put in place a regulatory framework to guide and monitor their operations?”
These questions are not to be answered by our courts, which have thus far decided in accordance with precedent and the Constitution, but by Congress, which has the power to change the law.
Throw in a reference to male anatomy and you have a good joke. A few nights ago, talking about Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, Stephen Colbert remarked that Blankfein “showed true Goldman Sac[h]” when the top-earning CEO told a newspaper he is “doing God’s work.”
“I have always believed that bankers are God’s representatives on Earth. They’re like the Pope – if the Vatican was incorporated in Delaware.”
— Stephen Colbert
click on image to view video
In a recent interview with London paper The Sunday Times, not only did Blankfein claim divine purpose, he also referred to himself as just a “blue-collar guy.” Sure – if that blue collar is attached to a Swedish Eton dress shirt with diamond-encrusted studs and cufflinks, priced at a mere $45,000 a pop. The guy may take home a $68 million salary, but that doesn’t mean he can’t keep it real.
In his divine pursuit, Blankfein found it in his heart to ensure the bank giant Goldman Sachs doled out subprime mortgages to thousands of his fellow blue-collar Americans. And when those loans went bad, and homes were repossessed –well, that was just God’s way of guiding us away from such material pursuits as owning a home.
The Times article threw out revolting examples of excess in the form of Goldman Sachs salaries.
“Average pay this recessionary year for the 30,000 staff is expected to be a record $700,000. Top earners will get tens of millions…”
— The Sunday Times of London
Wall Street/Big Bank greed isn’t news, but it does continue to enrage post-bailout, tax-paying Americans as every week we hear new reports about record profits here, excessive separation packages there and outrageous executive salaries everywhere – particular those being paid out by the same banks that took taxpayer dollars just months ago to stay afloat.
The Dodd Plan for Reform
Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) introduced a bill in the Senate Banking Committee last week that his office calls “a tough, bold bill to reform the way that our financial system is regulated.” Dodd’s sales pitch to the American people continued in only slightly less vague, baby-kissing, God-bless-all-you-hard-working-Americans campaign language.
“Our plan will stop abusive practices by creating an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency with one mission: standing up for consumers. Whether taking out a mortgage, getting a credit card, or investing for retirement, Americans deserve to receive clear and accurate information, to be protected from hidden fees and abusive terms, and to know that the financial products they’re being offered are safe,” Dodd said at a press conference where he and eight other Democratic Senators introduced the bill.
Dodd’s front-and-center role on this bill wouldn’t be so laughable if it wasn’t for the fact that he was the single largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the 10 years leading up to the federal home loan crisis. Dodd, along with fellow Democratic Sen. John Kerry, and former Democratic Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, were the top four recipients of Fannie and Freddie campaign contributions from 1988 to 2008.
It will be interesting to see if Congressional Democrats and the White House can sell this reform bill better than they did health care reform – an effort that often reminded me of poor, bumbling Tommy Boy, crossing the country, trying to sell brake pads.
Subscribe to Feed by Email
Add to My Technorati Favorites 